Strategy of inquiry

This section commences by considering the educational research strategy and planning context. Reference is made to Cohen et al.‟s (2007 p.78) „framework for planning research‟ as it offers the researcher a planning process including; a „sequence‟ for determining the preparatory issues, „methodology‟, „sampling‟ and „instrumentation‟, „piloting‟ and „timing and sequencing‟. Research design includes consideration of the politics of research, ethical issues, research methodology, instruments, audience for the research, time frames, resources required, validity and reliability, data analysis, reporting and writing up the research (Cohen et al., 2007 p.79). This chapter and remaining sections are configured to align broadly with Morrison‟s approach (1993 in Cohen et al., 2007 p.79) of:

orientation decisions

research design and methodology data analysis

presenting and reporting the results

The orientation decisions are primarily strategic, many of which underpin the discussions in the following sections. Given their significance it is worth highlighting the key aspects here. The model and performance framework being developed will be of particular benefit to strategic managers in HEIs. The underpinning research will contribute to new knowledge and understanding in the research fields of widening access and student retention. Implicit in the key research question and explicit in its supporting questions is the potential for policy related outcomes that resonate with both HEFCW and policy makers in HEIs. The research has a clear strategic and policy orientation. This is made possible, in part, by the role and space occupied by the professional capacity of the researcher. This gives unique access to information and data sets as well as resources to influence the research in „real time‟. Other orientation issues including the availability of resources, time scales and frames of the research are considered formally as part of the risk assessment.

Table 2 (p.75) will identify the risk, the likelihood of it occurring, the impact should it occur and how the risk will be mitigated. This provides a mechanism for keeping a strategic overview of the orientation related issues that may change over the time of the research.

A crucial orientation consideration for the research is that of „context‟ and how it influences the research design, plays through the research and informs the outputs. The two primary contexts are widening access and student retention, whilst

acknowledging that audit and organisational change have influence. The research is located in a HEI undergoing considerable organisational development and growth and under constant audit scrutiny, this includes the QAA‟s taught degree awarding powers inspection. All HEIs are also located in a changing external policy context and subject to scrutiny, by Government, National Audit Office, QAA and, most recently, students through the NSS.

These are important factors to be considered when determining the strategy of inquiry and the research approach that will most effectively meet the requirements of the research aim, the key research question and its supporting research questions.

Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods approaches

Three major strategies of inquiry are used in social sciences research: quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods (Creswell, 2003).

A quantitative approach includes experiments and surveys. Complex experiments have many variables and treatments and surveys incorporate causal paths and the identification of the collective strength of multiple variables. This approach includes performance data, observational data, statistical analysis and is adopted when postpositivist claims are used for developing knowledge.

Qualitative approaches are varied and are less concerned with numerical outcomes, focusing rather on context, experiences and narratives. Examples include

ethnographies, grounded theory, case studies, phenomenological and narrative research. They typically incorporate open-ended questions; interview, observational, document and audiovisual data; and text and image analysis (Creswell, 2003 p.17). It is adopted as an approach when knowledge claims are based on constructivist perspectives.

Mixed methods requires the collection and analysis of both forms of data in a single study. Methodological studies on mixed methods can be seen in several works (Brewer & Hunter, 1989; Creswell, 2003; Punch, 2005). A mixed methods approach is complex, since it is multi-dimensional: not only is there an issue of how

quantitative and qualitative methods are combined (interactive or separate) but there is also the extent and relative levels of dominance throughout the process, the degree of triangulation attempted and order of sequencing i.e. time domain. It can be a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches in determining the research questions; combination of the methods, data capture and findings or combination to determine the conclusions. A particular strength of mixed methods is the techniques adopted are considered to be close to what researchers do in

practice (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004).

All methods have limitations and biases associated with one method could

neutralise the biases of the other. The concept of triangulation is therefore translated into the research methods adopted. The results from one method can inform the other (Greene et al., 1989 in Creswell, 2003). Mixed methods approaches are adopted when the researcher tends to base knowledge claims on pragmatic

grounds (problem-centred, consequence-oriented, and pluralistic). This has synergy with the research inquiry.

Punch (2005) highlights the importance of the match between research questions, research approaches and subsequent methods. The questions will determine whether quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods approaches should be adopted, and influences the research methodology. The research questions in this inquiry require empirical data from the case study and national KPIs to be sourced, interpreted and presented not only in „real‟ time but also retrospectively (albeit weeks, months, a year and multiples for others). Choices around the scope and depth of the analysis are important. The research questions, however, also seek to understand what an institution can do to improve student retention. This requires a more qualitative approach, considering actions, interventions and consequences. Methods such as document content analysis (policy, strategy and practice) and telephone interviews with students, therefore become important. This research inquiry demands a methodology that extends beyond the application of either quantitative or qualitative methods. It is grounded in a complex interplay between both methods and adopts therefore a mixed methods approach.

An example of how the two separate methodologies are combined to support the research questions relating to the case institution is shown in Figure 2. The

quantitative approach determines the scale of an issue, for example an analysis of student withdrawals whilst the qualitative analysis asks, why or what? In this inquiry,

the quantitative methods dominates and frames the research, seeking to determine widening access and student retention performances, data patterns, relationships and trends whilst the qualitative research develops the multi perspective dimension, exploring students experiences and perceptions and determining actions.

Figure 2 Combining quantitative and qualitative methods-an example

Research question Holistic-Institute Research question Subunit-School Follow up Research question- Student How many students

withdraw from undergraduate degree programmes during the year?

Analysis: Institute level Student withdrawal data at regular intervals throughout the year culminating in a year end position post resit boards

Output: Report-Institute level. KPI [number/%]

Req u ire s q u a n ti ta ti v e m e th o d s

How many students withdraw from undergraduate degree programmes in each School during the year?

Analysis: School level Student withdrawal data at regular intervals

throughout the year culminating in a year end position post resit boards

Output: Report-School level KPI [number/%]

Re q u ire s q u a n ti ta ti v e m e th o d s

What do students say about why they withdrew and are there differences between the Schools?

Analysis: Student level 1) Decision identified on the withdrawal authorisation form

2) semi structured telephone interviews with students who had withdrawn

3) focus groups with programme leaders Output- Report including charts showing reasons identified from form and supplemented by analysis of telephone interviews. Req u ire s q u a lit a ti v e m e th o d s - in fo rm e d f ro m t h e o re ti c a l m o d e ls

How many students are given pass/progress at Assessment Boards but fail to return?

Analysis: Institute level Assessment Board results

Output- Report- Institute level

KPI [number/%]

How many students are given pass/progress at Assessment Boards in each School but fail to return?

Analysis: School level Assessment Board results

Output- Report- School level

KPI [number/%]

What do student say about why they did not return?

Analysis: Student level Open structure interview with pass/progress non-returning students and establish the reasons

Output- Report informed by theoretical and practice informed models

This research inquiry effectively „integrates‟ quantitative and qualitative methods and applies it within a single institution. The study is framed within time bounds,

primarily, but not exclusively, focuses on undergraduate non-continuation rates and viewed through a research lens that highlights the performances of „non-traditional‟ students. The key research question and several of the research questions are well served by the mixed methods approach. However, to support the research process

it was also necessary to support it within a broader case study methodology. The rationale for this decision is now discussed.

Case study methodology

Case study methodology is ideal when a holistic, in-depth investigation is needed. It is a form of qualitative methodology that has its origins in organisational studies in the social science disciplines of sociology, industrial relations and anthropology. It has relevance when applied to studying processes and contexts of phenomenon within organisations (Meyer, 2001) as well as exploring in depth a programme, activity, a process or individuals (Creswell, 2003). Merriam (2001) also considered case studies as pluralistic, descriptive and heuristic, which has resonance with the key research question and the broader higher education sector performance context. The particularistic nature of a case study means that it can examine a specific issue but illuminate a general problem. Its descriptive nature means that it can illustrate the complexities of a situation and the heuristic quality means it can evaluate, summarise and conclude, which increases its generalisability.

Case study methodology enables the research to portray, analyse and interpret the uniqueness of a situation through accessible accounts. It can be used to present and represent reality and contribute to action and intervention (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007). It is a research strategy that affords powerful freedom on the researcher in relation to research design decisions, since the definitions and

descriptions of what constitutes a case study is fairly loose. However, Meyer (2001) also suggests that looseness can be both a strength and a weakness: the tailoring of the design and data collection procedures to the research questions has resulted in poor case studies, thus leaving it open to criticism from the quantitative field of research (Cook and Campbell, 1979 cited in Meyer, 2001 p.330). It can also mean that a case study is misused as a catch-all research category (Merriam, 1998). Yin (2003) defines a case study as:

„...an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident.‟

(Yin, 2003 p.13)

This methodology provides the opportunity to examine performances, systems and processes at different levels, in context, in „real‟ time, retrospectively and during a

longitudinal study. The contextual nature of case study methodology, as applied to this research inquiry, is influential as it foregrounds the complexities of

organisational reality. In adopting a case study methodology, Pettigrew (1990 p.270) identified context as:

„...not just a stimulus environment but a nested arrangement of structures and processes where the subjective interpretations of actors perceiving, comprehending, learning and remembering help shape process.‟

This resonates with the research context since the case institution was undergoing significant organisational change. It also applies to the researcher since her

appreciate system also depends on time, as the phenomenon and influencing structures and systems are more fully understood and research capability is

developed. This influenced when the writing of the case study took place (Pettigrew, 1990 p.271) since some of the insights on student retention performance were being realised in „real‟ time; it was a dynamic process. This manifested itself in the drafting and redrafting, many times over, of Chapter 4. The importance of context is picked up throughout this thesis and articulated through descriptors of the case institution, its structure and processes as they interface with the phenomenon over time; the external policy, funding, audit and accountability environments and the relationships and reflections of being researcher, senior manager and professional practitioner (i.e. responsible for leading on widening access, student retention and strategy development).

Context and change are important to this research and work by Pettigrew (1985, 1987, 1990), helps to frame this case study. His research focuses on leadership and change and although this is not a theme within this case study in itself, its

consequences articulated through performance monitoring, designing and

evaluating interventions, people, process and system development are all key. He considers the leadership and change literature to fail in addressing both the holistic and dynamic analysis of „changing‟ (Pettigrew, 1987) and encourages, instead, a form of research which is contextual and processual in character (Pettigrew, 1985). His contextual analysis of a process draws on the phenomena at vertical and

horizontal levels of analysis and the interconnections between higher or lower levels through time (Pettigrew, 1987). Although a contextualist analysis is not wholly applied to this case study, aspects of a number of the characteristics that would be expected, is evidenced. Firstly, the phenomenon is investigated from a theoretical

(institution, school and programme) there is a set of cross-sectional categories (e.g. withdrawals, referrals). Secondly, descriptions of processes and systems as they interface with the phenomenon, over time, are included throughout Chapter 4. Thirdly, the case study is informed by theories which implicitly place human beings as underlying the research. It is a key influencing feature of the phenomenon of student retention. Finally, the case study analysis recognises that structural analysis and contextual constraints are not incompatible with processual analyses that stress action and strategic conduct, since:

„…this approach recognises processes both are constrained by structures and shape structures, either in the direction of preserving them or in altering them.‟

(Pettigrew, 1987 p.656)

The application of Pettigrew‟s contextualist inquiry into strategic change involves asking questions about the „content‟, „context‟ and „process‟ of change together with the inter-connections between these three broad analytical categories. Had the research aim and key research question emphasised the leadership and strategic change process over the study of the phenomenon itself, how it manifested itself in the reporting and performance monitoring as well as identifying management interventions, then the case study methodology would have been enhanced by the formal application of a „contextualist‟ approach. The research did, however, benefit from being informed by the „contextualist‟ approach.

The case study methodology needs not only to meet the demands of the research inquiry but it is important for the study to make a lasting contribution to case study methodological research. In order for it to do so, Yin (2003) identifies five general characteristics of a case study which are summarised below (for further discussion refer to Yin, 2003): the case study must be significant; be complete; consider alternative perspectives; must display sufficient evidence and be composed in an engaging manner. Case studies are varied and Stake 1994 cited in Punch (2005 p.144) identifies a number of different case types:

„the intrinsic case study, where the study is undertaken because the researcher wants a better understanding of this particular case

the instrumental case study, where a particular case is examined to give insight into an issue, or to refine a theory

the collective case study, where the instrumental case study is extended to cover several cases, to learn more about the phenomenon, population or general condition.‟

The first and second cases, Punch (2005) identifies as single case studies. The third focuses not only within the case but across multiple cases which Punch (2005) defines as the multiple case study, or the comparative case study. This research inquiry most closely speaks to a single study case methodology.

Yin (2003) identifies five rationales for choosing a case study methodology; these are now used to test its appropriateness for this inquiry. The first rationale speaks directly to this inquiry in that the study may represent a „critical case‟ in testing a well formulated theory; that based on Tinto‟s model of student departure (Bean &

Metzner, 1985; Pascarella et al., 1983; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1983; Tinto, 1975, 1993). The second rationale recognises the „extreme or unique case‟ since

preliminary research into student retention in Wales highlighted the case institution‟s widening access and student non-continuation performances lie in the higher

quartile of all HEIs in Wales (James, 2007a). That said, there are a few HEIs in Wales, and many more in England that are of „similar type‟ to the case institution and therefore Yin‟s (2003) third rationale may also apply; that of the ‟representative or typical case‟. Rationale four is difficult to assess in the design stage. However, subsequent work, including this research has exposed „revelatory outputs‟ (H. James, 2007a, 2007c, 2009). A key opportunity is that of rationale five, „longitudinal‟ and whilst some of the analysis will be based on retrospective data, an element of „real-time‟ analysis of case data, is included.

The key research question is therefore well served by a case study approach. The final orientation issue is that of perspective.

Perspective

Mertens (2003 cited in Creswell, 2003) advocates for the importance of a theory- lens or perspective in mixed methods research to guide a case study. The theoretical frameworks underpinning much of the work on student retention, including this research are derived, or at least informed from Tinto‟s work (1975, 1993), which is re-produced in Figure 1, and developed from an interactionalist perspective.

An interactionalist perspective defines social interaction as involving meanings and interpretations and:

„…highlights the way in which the social order is actively constructed (rather than passively experienced as some Structuralists argue) by people going about the process of making sense of the actions of others.‟

(Sociology.org.uk, 2005)

The concept of „society‟ is seen as:

„...an „elaborate fiction‟ created in order to make sense of the bewildering range of behaviour experienced on a daily basis.‟

(Sociology.org.uk, 2005)

„Society‟ has its own set of players, interpretations of behaviours, labels, all creating their sense of what is real with a real set of consequences. These all act within a particular point in time, which is their reality. Players (e.g. students, peers, faculty staff, administrative and support staff, parents, friends) all have their sense of reality which may or may not coincide with another person‟s reality whilst the belief is maintained. Students as players in this study also have labels. They may be specific e.g. categorising socio-economic or educational background or more general e.g. a „non-traditional‟ student, a category which is significant for this case study.

Considerable emphasis in the USA research literature (De Rome & Lewin, 1984; Pascarella & Chapman, 1983; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1983) has been placed on validating Tinto‟s model of separation. Even in the UK where different models are emerging ,the importance of interactions between players (e.g. students, staff, family), recognising and acknowledging their own sense of reality, is understood (Ball, Davies, David, & Reay, 2002; Brundsden et al., 2000; Dodgson & Bolam, 2002; Ozga & Sukhnandan, 1998; Reay et al., 2005). The interactionalist

perspective provides a valuable lens for this case study, the final methodological consideration underpinning this research inquiry.

Research design

This section describes the research design. Whereas the previous section focused on the orienting decisions and research approaches, this provides the „tactical‟; the practicalities of the research. Having determined the research approach as being a

longitudinal instrumental case study, this section draws from the key research question and its supporting research questions and identifies the specific research